ScotRail operations 1980s-privitisation

[Derekstuart]

Dunedin,

 

what an incredibly interesting post. I'm sure I am not the only one who will have found that incredibly informative. It certainly answered an awful lot of questions that I have seen often asked about this.

[keefer]

Wot he said!

 

Excellent info there Dunedin, that post ties together all the bits of info different people had - I don't think I've ever seen a full explanation before.

[Colin Stewart]

 

8. Was all/most of the signalling between Stirling and Perth semaphore signalling or were there some colour lights then as well?

 

If I remember correctly most was semaphore, the distant signals were colour lights and there were some intermediate signals north of Dunblane which were also colour lights.

 

Hope that helps

 

Colin

[hexagon789]

Thanks Dunedin for the really comprehensive explanation of the Class 47/7's push-pull system, I've never been able to ascertain much more than the fact that the DBSOs were equipped with an EMU-style power controller, so the information above is very interesting to me. Thanks also to Colin for the info about the signalling employed, I thought a mixture would be the case but as you see plenty of semaphores on the route even today I wasn't to sure. I think I'll go for colour lights for the distants and semaphores for the home signals. Thanks again to all of you, you've all been immensely helpful! ☺

[Derekstuart]

Dunedin,

 

could we press you with some further questions that I have seen people ask previously or some have indicated a 'degree' of understanding but not to your level.

 

We are told that the TDM (or was it FDM?) on the 47s was not the same system as the later WC and ECML system. Can I ask how different they were please? I know the DBSOs had to be re-wired for their move South, but no more idea why/how etc.

 

Many thanks.

[ColinK]

Interesting thread. Does anyone know where I can find a photo of the Mk2 coach bogie fitted with disc brakes? Its to help me make a model 27 powered Glasgow - Edinburgh push pull train

[keefer]

thought there might be something the signalbox.org site, there's a couple of diagrams for Stirling Middle.

One for c1980 and another c1999:  http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=593

 

Nothing in the Signalling Notices on s-r-s.org (free content) - but no doubt there will be other stuff available to members

[keefer]

Interesting thread. Does anyone know where I can find a photo of the Mk2 coach bogie fitted with disc brakes? Its to help me make a model 27 powered Glasgow - Edinburgh push pull train

 

Courtesy Brian Daniels (of RMWeb) : https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5837086620/in/album-72157626969809416/

 

IIRc the extra piping etc. was fitted to one  side of each bogie.(i.e as you look at the coach side-on, the right-hand bogie has the extra stuff)

remember also that there are no brakeblocks, but a brake disc on the face of each wheel

 

Also visible on one of the original mk2 p-p vehicles, FK 13415: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5837144002/in/album-72157626969809416/

(notice this also has a Blue-Star jumper and regulating air pipe visible, as mentioned by Dunedin previously)

[Dunedin]

Dunedin,

 

could we press you with some further questions that I have seen people ask previously or some have indicated a 'degree' of understanding but not to your level.

 

We are told that the TDM (or was it FDM?) on the 47s was not the same system as the later WC and ECML system. Can I ask how different they were please? I know the DBSOs had to be re-wired for their move South, but no more idea why/how etc.

 

Many thanks.

 

Hi Derekstuart,

 

I'm glad you and others found the spot interesting and informative.

The 47/7 and DBSO system in Scotland was designed and supplied by Brush and was an FDM system, so it modulated different frequencies to transmit the different channels/messages used to control the loco from the DBSO and for the loco to send messages back to the DBSO. 

 

The systems used on the West Coast mainline and East Coast mainline were designed and supplied by Plessey and they were (are) TDM systems so the different channels are transmitted during predetermined, discrete time-slots in a predetermined sequence. Interestingly, the Mark 4 coaches on the ECML use TDM to control the Class 91 from the DBSO, but they also have an FDM system as well. This is used for control within the rake and is used for air conditioning control, lighting control etc.

 

Another interesting feature of the Brush system was that Channel 1 which was "Engine Start" on the Class 47/7 was also described in the manual as being "Pan Up & Reset" on the Class 81 loco! The Class 81s were never fitted, but the system was designed to be used with them. For each Class 47/7 channel, there was an equivalent described in the manual for the Class 81.

[Derekstuart]

Many thanks Dunedin. I was told years back (Haymarket open day (1985?)) when getting a 'behind the scenes' tour of a 47/7 engine compartment (711 GFB IIRC) that it was FDM and it was explained at great length the difference between FDM and TDM, which I think was under development but not then in service anywhere.

 

Over the years I have since heard people refer to TDM for the /7s and any mention of FDM is ridiculed, so thank you for confirming what I originally understood is in fact correct.

 

You are a mine of information.

[ColinK]

Courtesy Brian Daniels (of RMWeb) : https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5837086620/in/album-72157626969809416/

 

IIRc the extra piping etc. was fitted to one  side of each bogie.(i.e as you look at the coach side-on, the right-hand bogie has the extra stuff)

remember also that there are no brakeblocks, but a brake disc on the face of each wheel

 

Also visible on one of the original mk2 p-p vehicles, FK 13415: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5837144002/in/album-72157626969809416/

(notice this also has a Blue-Star jumper and regulating air pipe visible, as mentioned by Dunedin previously)

Many thanks, I can now make a start on my coaches.

[Dunedin]

Many thanks Dunedin. I was told years back (Haymarket open day (1985?)) when getting a 'behind the scenes' tour of a 47/7 engine compartment (711 GFB IIRC) that it was FDM and it was explained at great length the difference between FDM and TDM, which I think was under development but not then in service anywhere.

 

Over the years I have since heard people refer to TDM for the /7s and any mention of FDM is ridiculed, so thank you for confirming what I originally understood is in fact correct.

 

You are a mine of information.

 

I was also at Haymarket open day in 1985. I was on 37401 and my former colleague Ray Murison was on 47715, which was named Haymarket during the open day by Robbie Coltrane, I think. It was Ray who really knew the details about the workings of the two-wire control system as it was known. I owe my knowledge of the system (and also many other locomotive systems) to him, but he did a good job of passing it on. Ray sadly died at the beginning of 2014, but below is a photo I took at Haymarket in summer 1986: Ray is the one in the leather jacket. It was the only item of clothing he had which he said actually looked better after being in the engine room of a Class 47!

 

 

The loco in the photo is actually 47715 undergoing a traction motor change.

It's very likely that it was Ray who answered your questions about whether the two wire control system was FDM etc. I doubt whether many other people there would have known!

[Derekstuart]

Hello Dunedin, thanks for the further info. I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friend Ray.

 

I couldn't say for certain who told me about the FDM, but my Dad (a Kings Cross Traction Inspector (or possibly still HST instructor back then, I can't recall)) did go into it in more detail on the journey back- as you can tell, I have a habit of asking a 1,000 questions.

 

I do recognise him from the photo above, though I couldn't say where from (perhaps another post here). Do you mind me asking what his actual job was then- presumably some sort of engineering manager

[Dunedin]

Hello Dunedin, thanks for the further info. I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friend Ray.

 

I couldn't say for certain who told me about the FDM, but my Dad (a Kings Cross Traction Inspector (or possibly still HST instructor back then, I can't recall)) did go into it in more detail on the journey back- as you can tell, I have a habit of asking a 1,000 questions.

 

I do recognise him from the photo above, though I couldn't say where from (perhaps another post here). Do you mind me asking what his actual job was then- presumably some sort of engineering manager

 

Hi Derekstuart,

Not at all; we were both Senior Technical Officers (STOs) back in the day. We were responsible for managing the reliability of the fleet, which meant understanding the reasons why it wasn't reliable, which varied from design issues, wear-out, inappropriate maintenance regimes, poor quality spares and also poor workmanship/lack of understanding of the technicalities of the fleet by the maintainers. It meant that we never quite knew what the day would bring. It meant that you needed to know, or be prepared to learn, pretty much everything about everything on the fleet. Ray had far more experience than I did - he'd been doing the job for over ten years by the time I arrived there and he carried on doing it for more than another twenty. I don't think he ever stopped learning and never really got bored with it. The photo was taken in the summer of 1986, when Ray was covering the depot engineer's post (depot manager) while he was away on holiday, hence he'd swapped his dust coat for a jacket.

 

I actually think back on that job - the first in my railway career - as being the one that I've enjoyed the most. Ray and I had a great deal of fun and a lot of laughs. Somehow, we just clicked and we kept in touch over the years. My job in Bombardier eventually took me back to Haymarket on a regular basis and when it did, we would usually go for a pint and a bite to eat. Ray gave me a great deal of advice and encouragement during the building of Aberdeen Kirkhill. He enjoyed seeing the photos and the magazine articles; just a shame he never got to see it for real, but then that just proves that we all need to make the most of the moment, because you never know what is around the corner!

[tamperman36]

good to see that health and safety had not gone mad yet in 1986, as in the lack of hard hats and hi vis clothing.

[Bob Reid]

Ray's leather jackets were as legendary as his skill with the 47/7's..... Nearly as legendary as one Bill Prentice

[Dunedin]

Ray's leather jackets were as legendary as his skill with the 47/7's..... Nearly as legendary as one Bill Prentice

 

Bill Prentice..... Now there's a blast from the past! I remember being on an HST with him as a trainee, making our way through the coaches from one power car to the other. Bill came across a couple of youths with their feet on the seats. He explained to them that either they were going to sit properly, with feet on the floor, or the next station we went through, they would be getting off, whether we stopped there or not. Their feet went to the floor - quickly!

 

Bob, the person Ray used to reckon was the best, was the guy at Inverness - was it Jimmy Frazer? Don't think I ever met him, but Ray reckoned he was the dog's whatnots.

[Derekstuart]

Dunedin,

 

thank you for sharing those posts with us. I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that a "Dunedin's anecdotes" thread would be a welcome addition to the forum.

 

BTW I have just started looking through your Aberdeen Kirkhill thread. A very interesting layout indeed. Sometimes layouts really do capture the intended atmosphere and you can see that the builders really know the subject. It captures the feel very well and I am sure that all 30 or so pages will be a very interesting read tonight.

 

If you don't mind can I ask you "one last" question (always a euphemism for 'there are 100 more to ask'). Re your earlier 47/7 posts, could a /7 control another /7 in multiple or were they only from a DBSO? I never really thought about it before but if they could then I would assume that requires/required a set of pressure switches to transmit the power setting to the other 47s.

 

PS I think I recognise the name Bill Prentice, but no idea why or where from.

[keefer]

Apologies if I have this completely wrong, but i think (simplifying greatly) the DBSO had a 'transmitter' and the loco had the 'receiver'. Therefore the system was, and could only be, used one-way i.e. for controlling the loco from the DBSO.

Hence one loco wouldn't be able to control another loco, as no transmitters, only receivers?

[ruggedpeak]

I remember an article, possibly in Model Railway Constructor or similar, about how to make a DBSO using an Airfix Mk2d BSO. there was also a description of how the control system worked.

Must've been about 1984/5?

99% sure there was also one in Railway Modeller around then as I was a subscriber and did the conversion. I still have it and my Scotrail Lima Mk3's today

[keefer]

that must be the one i'm thinking of i think - i didn't buy many magazines, so i must've bought it for that feature

[sharkman]

Sorry I've not read fully through this topic but Southern Pride kits do 3 variants off the DBSO in kit for at £31.50 each EM276/277/278!

[Derekstuart]

Southern Pride stuff sounds really good, but apart from a couple of AM10 kits (VERY good) built at an exhibition I haven't seen any of their stuff either real or on the internet.

 

Certainly given the amount of people who talk about ScR DBSOs I am surprised there aren't more SP models on layouts. Anyone any ideas? I think their range- if it is as good as their AM10s- must be the best kept secret in the hobby.

 

Sorry if O/T

[Dunedin]

Dunedin,

 

thank you for sharing those posts with us. I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that a "Dunedin's anecdotes" thread would be a welcome addition to the forum.

 

BTW I have just started looking through your Aberdeen Kirkhill thread. A very interesting layout indeed. Sometimes layouts really do capture the intended atmosphere and you can see that the builders really know the subject. It captures the feel very well and I am sure that all 30 or so pages will be a very interesting read tonight.

 

If you don't mind can I ask you "one last" question (always a euphemism for 'there are 100 more to ask'). Re your earlier 47/7 posts, could a /7 control another /7 in multiple or were they only from a DBSO? I never really thought about it before but if they could then I would assume that requires/required a set of pressure switches to transmit the power setting to the other 47s.

 

PS I think I recognise the name Bill Prentice, but no idea why or where from.

Hi,

 

I hope you enjoyed reading the Kirkhill thread and glad you think we captured the atmosphere of a depot.

Regarding the question about whether a 47/7 could be controlled from another: it couldn't. Although it seemed advanced at the time, the Brush two-wire control system was quite basic by today's standards. In theory, the electronics could have done the job; all they did was convey messages between the control units in the loco and DBSO, but the hard-wiring in the locos wasn't there in the 47/7s to enable control messages to be broadcast onto the two RCH wires. All the loco could send were wheel slip, general fault, engine stopped/started and fire alarm messages.

 

I seem to remember that Brush also provided BR with similar two-wire control equipment that was fitted to a couple of 47/3s which was for multiple working, although I think only two were ever fitted as an experiment. By then, BR probably had enough Class 56s with multiple working wired as standard to make Class 47 conversions uneconomic.

 

Your question has made me wonder though whether a DBSO could have controlled two 47/7s? It's not something I ever thought about before, but I don't think it would have worked because there would have been three sets of equipment rating to modulate frequency in a system that was designed for two and I think the fault messages would have become seriously screwed up! Also, to be honest, there was nothing to be gained from it: Class 47/7s were like hens teeth anyway in terms of availability, so there were never enough to be able to afford the luxury of running them in multiple. If a loco failed, you could (and they did) assist from the rear with another 47/7 and drive from the leading DBSO, but then the failed loco had to be isolated in terms of the two-wire control (two-wire control switch on the two-wire control cubicle set to "Normal" as opposed to "Remote").

Edited October 29, 2016 by Dunedin

[brushman47544]

I seem to remember that Brush also provided BR with similar two-wire control equipment that was fitted to a couple of 47/3s which was for multiple working, although I think only two were ever fitted as an experiment. By then, BR probably had enough Class 56s with multiple working wired as standard to make Class 47 conversions uneconomic.

Pinky and Perky, also known as 47370 and 47379